y in question had become, or was supposed to have become,
extinct on the death of Sir John Smyth, in 1849, and at his decease
the estates had passed to his sister Florence; and when she died, in
1852, had devolved upon her son, who was then a minor, and who was
really the defendant in the cause. Mr. Justice Coleridge presided at
the trial, Mr. (afterwards Lord-Justice) Bovill appeared for the
claimant, and Sir Frederick Thesiger represented the defendant.

According to the opening address of the counsel for the plaintiff, his
client had been generally supposed to be the son of a carpenter of
Warminster named Provis, and had been brought up in this man's house
as one of his family. When the lad arrived at an age to comprehend
such matters, he perceived that he was differently treated from the
other members of the household, and, from circumstances which came to
his knowledge, was led to suspect that Provis was not really his
father, but that he was the son of Sir Hugh Smyth of Ashton Hall, near
Bristol, and the heir to a very extensive property. It seemed that
this baronet had married a Miss Wilson, daughter of the Bishop of
Bristol, in 1797, that she had died childless some years later, and
that he had, in 1822, united himself to a Miss Elizabeth. The second
union proved as fruitless as the first, and when Sir Hugh himself
died, in 1824, his brother John succeeded to the title and the greater
portion of the property. By-and-by, however, certain facts came to the
ears of the plaintiff, which left no doubt on his mind that he was the
legitimate son of Sir Hugh Smyth, by a first and hitherto concealed
marriage with Jane, daughter of Count Vandenbergh, to whom he had been
secretly married in Ireland, in 1796. But, although the plaintiff was
thus convinced himself, he knew that, while he possessed documents
which placed his origin beyond a doubt, it would be extremely
difficult for a person in his humble circumstances to substantiate his
claim, or secure the services of a lawyer bold enough to take his case
in hand, and refrained from demanding his rights until 1849; in which
year, rendered desperate by delay, he went personally to Ashton Hall,
obtained an interview with Sir John Smyth, and communicated to him his
relationship and his claims. The meeting was much more satisfactory
than might have been expected. As Sir John had been party to certain
documents which were executed by his brother in his lifetime (which
were amon